Translation and Validation of the Kaufman Domains of Creativity Scale on a Croatian Sample of Early Childhood and Preschool Education Students
Abstract
The current literature describes creativity as a domain-specific phenomenon. According to Kaufman’s five-factor model, creativity can manifest in the following distinctive domains: Self/Everyday, Scholarly, Performance, Mechanical/Scientific and Artistic. The purpose of the present study was to validate the Croatian version of the Kaufman Domains of Creativity Scale. The scale was administered to a sample of early childhood and preschool education students (N = 222). The results of the exploratory factor analysis showed that certain Self/Everyday tasks did not load on any of the scales, whereas some music-related tasks separated from other Performance tasks into a separate factor. These results could be explained by the characteristics of the convenience sample recruited for the study. The confirmatory factor analysis of the five-factor model and goodness-of-fit tests yielded results that are as satisfactory and consistent as previous validations. The Kaufman Domains of Creativity Scale is therefore considered to be a potentially feasible scale for assessing creativity as a domain-specific phenomenon. Additional research is needed to confirm the validity of the Croatian version of the scale with a representative random sample.
Downloads
References
Amabile, T. (2011). Componential theory of creativity (Working Paper No. 12-096). Harvard Business School.
Awofala, A. O., & Fatade, A. O. (2015). Validation of the domains of creativity scale for Nigerian preservice science, technology, and mathematics teachers. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 13(1), 131–150.
Beghetto, R. A. (2005a). Does assessment kill student creativity? The Educational Forum, 69(3), 254–263.
Beghetto, R. A. (2005b). Preservice teachers’ self-judgments of test taking. The Journal of Educational Research, 98(6), 376–380.
Beghetto, R. A. (2010). Creativity in the classroom. In J. C. Kaufman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of creativity (pp. 447–463). Cambridge University Press.
Boden, M. A. (2004). The creative mind: Myths and mechanisms (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Bruner, J. (1962). On knowing: Essays for the left hand. Harvard University Press.
Cheung, R. H. P., & Mok, M. M. C. (2018). Early childhood teachers’ perception of creative personality as a predictor of their support of pedagogy important for fostering creativity: A Chinese perspective. Creativity Research Journal, 30(3), 276–286.
Conradty, C., & Bogner, F. X. (2018). From STEM to STEAM: How to monitor creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 30(3), 233–240.
Craft, A. (2003). Creativity across the primary curriculum: Framing and developing practice. Routledge.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2014). Society, culture, and person: A systems view of creativity. In M. Csikszentmihalyi (Ed.), The Systems Model of Creativity (pp. 47–61). Springer.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8, 1. http://dx.doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v8n1.2000
Feist, G. J. (2004). Creativity and the frontal lobes. Bulletin of Psychology and the Arts, 5(1), 21–28.
Feldhusen, J. F. (1994). Talent identification and development in education (TIDE). Gifted Education International, 10(1), 10–15.
Feldhusen, J. F., & Goh, B. E. (1995). Assessing and accessing creativity: An integrative review of theory, research, and development. Creativity Research Journal, 8(3), 231–247.
Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences: The theory into practice. Basic Books.
Guilford, J. P. (1950). Fundamental statistics in psychology and education. McGraw-Hill.
Guilford, J. P. (1956). The structure of intellect. Psychological Bulletin, 53(4), 267–293.
Haylock, D. W. (1987). Mathematical creativity in schoolchildren. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 21(1), 48–59.
Henriksen, D. (2014). Full STEAM ahead: Creativity in excellent STEM teaching practices. The STEAM Journal, 1(2). https://doi.org/10.5642/steam.20140102.15
Ivcevic, Z., & Mayer, J. D. (2009). Mapping dimensions of creativity in the life-space. Creativity Research Journal, 21(2-3), 152–165.
Jennings, P. A., & Greenberg, M. T. (2009). The prosocial classroom: Teacher social and emotional competence in relation to student and classroom outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 79(1), 491–525.
Kaufman, J. C. (2012). Counting the muses: Development of the Kaufman Domains of Creativity Scale (K-DOCS). Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 6(4), 298–308.
Kaufman, J. C. (2016). Creativity 101. Springer Publishing Company.
Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2009). Beyond big and little: The four C model of creativity. Review of General Psychology, 13(1), 1–12.
Kaufman, J. C., & Sternberg, R. J. (Eds.). (2006). The international handbook of creativity. Cambridge University Press.
Maksić, S. B., & Spasenović, V. Z. (2018). Educational science students’ implicit theories of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 30(3), 287–294.
McKay, A. S., Karwowski, M., & Kaufman, J. C. (2017). Measuring the muses: validating the Kaufman domains of creativity scale (K-DOCS). Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 11(2), 216–230.
Pendergast, D., Garvis, S., & Keogh, J. (2011). Pre-service student-teacher self-efficacy beliefs: An insight into the making of teachers. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 36(12), 46–58.
Plucker, J. A., Beghetto, R. A., & Dow, G. T. (2004). Why isn’t creativity more important to educational psychologists? Potentials, pitfalls, and future directions in creativity research. Educational psychologist, 39(2), 83–96.
Robinson, K. (2015). Creative schools: The grassroots revolution that’s transforming education. Penguin.
Runco, M. A. (1999). Implicit theories. In M. Runco & S. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity (pp. 2–30). Academic Press.
Runco, M. A. (2014). Creativity: Theories and themes: Research, development, and practice. Elsevier.
Runco, M. A., & Jaeger, G. J. (2012). The standard definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 92–96.
Sanders, W. L., & Rivers, J. C. (1996). Cumulative and residual effects of teachers on future student academic achievement. University of Tennessee Value-Added Research and Assessment Center.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.474.3738&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Sekulić-Majurec, A. (2007). Uloga sudionika odgojno-obrazovnog procesa u stvaranju, provedbi i vrednovanju kurikuluma [The role of participants in the education process in creating, implementing, and evaluating the curriculum]. In V. Previšić (Ed.), Kurikulum: teorije–metodologija–sadržaj–struktura [Curriculum: Theories-methods-contents-structure] (pp. 351–380). Zagreb, Školska knjiga.
Simonton, D. K. (2012). Taking the US Patent Office creativity criteria seriously: A quantitative three-criterion definition and its implications. Creativity Research Journal, 24(2-3), 97–106.
Stein, M. I. (1953). Creativity and culture. The Journal of Psychology, 36(2), 311–322.
Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1993). Investing in creativity. Psychological Inquiry, 4(3), 229–232.
Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1999). The concept of creativity: Prospects and paradigms. In R. R. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 3–15). Cambridge University Press.
Zoglowek, H. (2018). Teacher of the gifted – What is needed. In J. Herzog (Ed.), Challenges of working with gifted pupils in European school systems (pp. 265–274). Verlag Dr. KovaÄ.
In order to ensure both the widest dissemination and protection of material published in CEPS Journal, we ask Authors to transfer to the Publisher (Faculty of Education, University of Ljubljana) the rights of copyright in the Articles they contribute. This enables the Publisher to ensure protection against infringement.
